Back to the original premise. If the expiration of the BUSH tax cuts will cause a loss of 3 million jobs...what created the 3 million jobs in the first place that would be lost as a result of the BUSH tax cuts?

Just yesterday, as talks over taxes and spending grew a little louder in Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cited an "independent" report that found tax increases on the wealthy would "cost our economy more than 700,000 jobs."
The argument, not surprisingly, was debunked months ago. But the rhetoric raises a worthwhile question: what would happen if a bipartisan agreement fails to materialize, and tax increases automatically kick in on Jan. 1?
Yesterday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported the looming tax hikes and spending cuts would undermine the economy in 2013, but the "least harmful component of the coming fiscal consolidation is precisely what Democrats are demanding: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for high earners."

CBO doesn't examine the top bracket Bush tax cuts directly. But it does look at two competing scenarios: One where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut are extended; another where all of the expiring tax cuts except for the payroll tax cut and the Bush tax cuts for top earners are extended.
The former, CBO says, would increase employment by 1.8 million full time equivalent employees in 2013 relative to allowing everything to lapse. The latter would increase employment by 1.6 million. The difference, 200,000 full time equivalent jobs, is attributable to the expiration of the top bracket Bush tax cuts alone.
By comparison, other layers of the fiscal cliff save less money and have far greater economic consequences. Failing to extend the expiring payroll tax cut and expiring emergency unemployment benefits through 2014 would cost the economy about 800,000 jobs, according to CBO. The two halves of the sequester -- the defense cuts and the domestic cuts -- would each cost the economy about 400,000 full time equivalent jobs.​

So, according to the CBO, the Democratic priorities do more to help the economy, and the Republican priorities do less. The 700,000 figure cited by the House Speaker has no basis in reality at all.
Maybe Republicans will try to suppress this, too?

unfortunately with Obama as president losing a job isn't a big threat, you know he's gonna take care of you.

As for clinton creating jobs? he did it by creating the dot.com bubble AND the housing bubble. he;s the one who created the mortgage problem. He did it to help people but never looked at the fact it wouldn't work. it's sort of the democrat M.O. to want to help people, pass laws thinking they are helping people, then find out later it doesn't work. I.E. social security

bush did add jobs, you can't claim that in 8 years he didn't add jobs, if all the jobs bush created were clintons, then all the jobs added under obama are bushes. stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.”

"There is one rule that works in every calamity. Be it pestilence, war, or famine, the rich get richer and poor get poorer. The poor even help arrange it."

So...the Bush tax cuts had no effect, but if you take them away, it causes the loss of 3 million jobs. Leftwingbat logic is so fun!

Click to expand...

The jobs won't be lost because of the tax cuts... even if the tax cuts are extended, the jobs will be lost. The repubtards are just trying to set up an excuse as to why they laid everyone off.

Click to expand...

CBO disagrees with you. They say that allowing the BUSH TAX CUTS to expire, we lose millions of jobs. I guess you know more than the CBO, right?

Click to expand...

from the report " if all of the policies considered in this analysis were extended for a prolonged period beyond the two years assumed here, federal debt … would continue to rise much faster than GDP. Such a path for federal debt could not be sustained indefinitely…."

Time to act responsibly and let the adult Democrats handle this, since the Republicans only live in a fantasy land that is proven over and over again not to work. Handpickling one item and disregarding the reality of the big picture is a hall mark of the greed induced insanity of the Republican Party of today.

unfortunately with Obama as president losing a job isn't a big threat, you know he's gonna take care of you.

As for clinton creating jobs? he did it by creating the dot.com bubble AND the housing bubble. he;s the one who created the mortgage problem. He did it to help people but never looked at the fact it wouldn't work. it's sort of the democrat M.O. to want to help people, pass laws thinking they are helping people, then find out later it doesn't work. I.E. social security

bush did add jobs, you can't claim that in 8 years he didn't add jobs, if all the jobs bush created were clintons, then all the jobs added under obama are bushes. stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Click to expand...

interesting thing about social security is that it was solvent until Reagan filled it with IOU's in the 80's, to fund the cold war build up.

I do so love these economic discussions where people only argue small pieces of data.

Yes Clinton drove job growth, even with tax hikes, and reduced the deficit. But the key thing is it wasn't just tax hikes. Clinton brought spending under control. Reduced entitlements. And was working off the reduced military spending of the Cold War peace dividend. He may have raised base income rates, but he also reduced capital gains rates, which drove business investment and lending. Clinton was not a "modern Keynsian".

And let's not forget one common modern economic misconception. The progressives belief that they follow the models of Keynes. They don't. Yes Keynsian belief drove much of the New Deal. Keynes believed that economic downturns could be mitigated by increased government spending. But here's the lie they never tell you. Keynes thought that deficit spending outside of times of war or national emergency was the highest order of foolishness. His belief was economic downturns were when you spend surplus, not dive deeper into debt. He would be appalled at what is being done in his name. It is precisely what he argued against. There is a rational argument to be made both for Keynes true model, which worked for Clinton, and Milton Friedmans, which worked for Reagan. But the "Krugman'esque" model being used today under Keynes name is pure foley and leads to Greece.

I do so love these economic discussions where people only argue small pieces of data.

Yes Clinton drove job growth, even with tax hikes, and reduced the deficit. But the key thing is it wasn't just tax hikes. Clinton brought spending under control. Reduced entitlements. And was working off the reduced military spending of the Cold War peace dividend. He may have raised base income rates, but he also reduced capital gains rates, which drove business investment and lending. Clinton was not a "modern Keynsian".

And let's not forget one common modern economic misconception. The progressives belief that they follow the models of Keynes. They don't. Yes Keynsian belief drove much of the New Deal. Keynes believed that economic downturns could be mitigated by increased government spending. But here's the lie they never tell you. Keynes thought that deficit spending outside of times of war or national emergency was the highest order of foolishness. His belief was economic downturns were when you spend surplus, not dive deeper into debt. He would be appalled at what is being done in his name. It is precisely what he argued against. There is a rational argument to be made both for Keynes true model, which worked for Clinton, and Milton Friedmans, which worked for Reagan. But the "Krugman'esque" model being used today under Keynes name is pure foley and leads to Greece.

Click to expand...

How dare you bring facts into a pissing match between the radical ends of the political spectrum! Are you off you rocker thinking that someone might listen?

I do so love these economic discussions where people only argue small pieces of data.

Yes Clinton drove job growth, even with tax hikes, and reduced the deficit. But the key thing is it wasn't just tax hikes. Clinton brought spending under control. Reduced entitlements. And was working off the reduced military spending of the Cold War peace dividend. He may have raised base income rates, but he also reduced capital gains rates, which drove business investment and lending. Clinton was not a "modern Keynsian".

And let's not forget one common modern economic misconception. The progressives belief that they follow the models of Keynes. They don't. Yes Keynsian belief drove much of the New Deal. Keynes believed that economic downturns could be mitigated by increased government spending. But here's the lie they never tell you. Keynes thought that deficit spending outside of times of war or national emergency was the highest order of foolishness. His belief was economic downturns were when you spend surplus, not dive deeper into debt. He would be appalled at what is being done in his name. It is precisely what he argued against. There is a rational argument to be made both for Keynes true model, which worked for Clinton, and Milton Friedmans, which worked for Reagan. But the "Krugman'esque" model being used today under Keynes name is pure foley and leads to Greece.

Click to expand...

How dare you bring facts into a pissing match between the radical ends of the political spectrum! Are you off you rocker thinking that someone might listen?

Click to expand...

Most of Obama's spending was on the stimulus which was to avert the economic downturn, a national economic emergency. So most of what he's done is exactly in line with Keynes's interpretation. Not that Keynsian economics has stayed pure to what he prescribed in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

I do so love these economic discussions where people only argue small pieces of data.

Yes Clinton drove job growth, even with tax hikes, and reduced the deficit. But the key thing is it wasn't just tax hikes. Clinton brought spending under control. Reduced entitlements. And was working off the reduced military spending of the Cold War peace dividend. He may have raised base income rates, but he also reduced capital gains rates, which drove business investment and lending. Clinton was not a "modern Keynsian".

And let's not forget one common modern economic misconception. The progressives belief that they follow the models of Keynes. They don't. Yes Keynsian belief drove much of the New Deal. Keynes believed that economic downturns could be mitigated by increased government spending. But here's the lie they never tell you. Keynes thought that deficit spending outside of times of war or national emergency was the highest order of foolishness. His belief was economic downturns were when you spend surplus, not dive deeper into debt. He would be appalled at what is being done in his name. It is precisely what he argued against. There is a rational argument to be made both for Keynes true model, which worked for Clinton, and Milton Friedmans, which worked for Reagan. But the "Krugman'esque" model being used today under Keynes name is pure foley and leads to Greece.

Click to expand...

How dare you bring facts into a pissing match between the radical ends of the political spectrum! Are you off you rocker thinking that someone might listen?

Click to expand...

Most of Obama's spending was on the stimulus which was to avert the economic downturn, a national economic emergency. So most of what he's done is exactly in line with Keynes's interpretation. Not that Keynsian economics has stayed pure to what he prescribed in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Keynes LOATHED public debt. He felt that economic downturns were when you aggressively spend the money you have. Not a time to borrow more money that you don't have. Spending the surplus that you do have is a way of investing in the future. Whereas spending the future generations money that you don't have is a way of bankrupting the nations future. People always seem to ignore one other component of Keynes actual philosophy (as opposed to what is so often quoted in the media). Keynes felt that aggressive spending during times of hardship was necesary, but that needs to be paid for with agressive saving during boom times.